Stra Trek Log Five

Blongley is the sole PV for this but he's no longer active and I found the cover art credit in Holdstock's Encyclopedia of Science Fiction - Joe Petagno. I'd like to add this information and append a note to link to the Holdstock publication if no one objects. --Mavmaramis 08:31, 15 February 2020 (EST)

Publication Series: Voyager Classics

In the Series Record there are seven hc pubs and one ebook attributed to the Classics series, apparently because of (?) the Note: ... "In March 2013 additional publication appeared that are being advertised as "Voyager Classics".

I'm questioning whether or not they should be attributed so, or decoupled.

None of these pubs have been PVed yet, but from a physical copy of the 4th printing of the 2013 hc edition here, I have, for example, the following from the Copyright page:

Collector's Edition published by HarperVoyager 2013 An imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers

Previously published in paperback by Grafton 1967 reprinted twenty-one times

HarperCollins Science Fiction & Fantasy reprinted once

and Flamingo 1993 reprinted eleven times

Voyager Classics 2001

and by Voyager 2004 reprinted six times,

2008 reprinted twenty-eight times

That was lengthy I know but it does show, IMO, that the title doesn't carry on as Voyager Classics beyond 2001. What do you think? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 19:51, 26 February 2020 (EST)

Maybe move them to their own series (these are the collector editions and they belong together). Keep in mind that back in the days, Voyager Classics was both the publisher (well the imprint) AND the pub series. The copyright shows that the publisher is not viable anymore after 2001 for the title, the series name may survive elsewhere though so I would not mess with the series just based on that. But with the gap in years, the lack of the word Voyager Classics anywhere in the new book (you have it, can you verify that) and the different way these look, I'd say that they are their own series and the two can be connected with notes. Annie 22:02, 26 February 2020 (EST)

Pages change

With regard to this pub. I've submitted the 1999 1st printing and now I'd like to change the Pages field (from vi+404 to [6]+404) and the Preface and Introduction pagination to match (see the penultimate line of the latter's pub Notes). What do you think? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 15:02, 27 March 2020 (EDT)

How sure are you that the 6th printing did not use roman numerals for these first pages? Not all printings are always exactly the same even if most of them are... Annie 15:16, 27 March 2020 (EDT)

Using Look Inside for the book's 2004 5th printing, the pages are unnumbered. The first page of the Introduction even has the same black mark at lower right that mine has. Kev. BanjoKev 15:25, 27 March 2020 (EDT)

If the 5th printing is in 2004, this 1999 date on the 6th is wrong as well. Any idea when the 6th printing is really? Annie 15:45, 27 March 2020 (EDT)

Yes, the date's wrong as well - should be 0000-00-00. Locus1 or OCLC don't have the 6th. No Amazon either. Where else to look? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 16:04, 27 March 2020 (EDT)

Nowhere I can think of. :( OCLC, Amazon (proper look inside showing the whole page) or a later printing are the usual go to. 0000-00-00 it is then. My best guess is that it was verified as the only pub at the time and made a 6th printing even if it was initially added to be the first. Or something like that... Or we are hitting some old dating rules (it is pretty old). Anyway - Give it a day or so in case someone else has something else to say but I would say to go ahead and submit it after that. Annie 17:13, 27 March 2020 (EDT)

Catalog of Copyright Entries

Hi, This is a reply to the message left on by talk page by Dirk P Broer.

I think there's been some confusion about the dates from the Catalog of Copyright Entries. In the online copyright database (https://cocatalog.loc.gov), which includes entries from 1978, both the registration date and date of publication are given. But this wasn't always the case. In the pre-1978 volumes I've been using, only one date is given. An explanation of what this date represents is given in the volumes themselves. For example, the volume that includes the entry for "Double Star" is Jan-Jun 1956 (it can be found here: https://archive.org/details/catalogofcopyrig3101lib/page/n13/mode/2up). Page vii details the information that can be present for each entry. Item 13 is the "Date of publication as given in the application", no mention is made of the registration date!

Also some of the dates in the Catalog of Copyright Entries can be cross-checked against other sources to confirm that they are publication dates. Two examples are:

Heinlien - Rocket Ship Galileo: Heinlein's biography by William Paterson contains the statement (Vol. 1, page 437): "Rocket Ship Galileo came out on October 13", which checks with the date of 13 Oct 47 in the Jan-Jun 1948 Catalog of Copyright Entries.

Asimov - Pebble in the Sky: Asimov's autobiography "In Memory Yet Green" contains the statement (page 580): "On January 19, when Pebble in the Sky was first published...", which checks with the date of 19 Jan 50 in the Jan-Jun 1950 Catalog of Copyright Entries.

Based on this information, could you please re-consider your decision to revert my edits?

Note, apologies if I've posted this twice - I'm new to these message boards.

Benjamin C. Kinney and Best Vegan Science Fiction & Fantasy 2018

Did one of my infrequent searches on Twitter for "isfdb", and came across this Tweet.

TL; DR is that this author has two entries on ISFDB, presumably because the aforementioned anthology appears to have credited him without his middle initial on the title page. This made me think a fix was just a case of making the "C."-less author record a variant of the parent, but then I noticed that the original (Fixer) submission seems to have the right name in the Title->Authors field? http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?4274178 I dunno if it's a case that one of the subsequent edits removed all the authors apart from the editor, but it's moved me to the point that I'm inclined to step back and let one of the grown-ups take over.

If everyone else is Twitter-less, but needs me to reach out back to the author for any clarifications, let me know. ErsatzCulture 12:22, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

Story authors are not added to anthologies as authors - they are added to their own stories only. Fixer submits what he finds in Amazon - and we need to clean the stories authors from the anthology editors list after approval. So yes - once approved, all stories authors who are not editors of the anthology had been removed.

And yes - if one pub uses the initial and one does not, we need to pseudonym. Let me look into these two records. Annie 12:35, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

Per later comments in that Twitter convo, it looks like that story has been published in two different anthologies; in the other one, it's credited to his correct name, but with a slightly mangled story name. (Waiting for confirmation on that though.) ErsatzCulture 12:42, 2 April 2020 (EDT) EDIT: confirmed this is the case

All fixed I think. Everyone is welcome to come over and post when they find this kind of issues - they are easy to fix. Annie 12:59, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

PS: And "title page" for a story is the page where the story starts, not the copyright page of the book :) When the two disagree, the title page wins - the copyright one is irrelevant. We use it when there is no other info but the author names should be added as they are on the stories title pages. Annie 13:03, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

Audible-ASIN

I noticed the External-ID links of some Autible-ASIN seem not to work. For example Das Labyrinth von London has an Audible-ASIN that leads to Amazon's Audible portal, but not to the publication. Only if You put in the Audible-ASIN code into the search field there, You'll find the audible book, though the URL of it contains the ASIN code. --Zapp 13:40, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

This is because this ASIN is for Audible-DE and our External ID field leads tothe Audible.com site. I had restored it to notes for now - this is the same situation we are monitoring over for the Japanese ones. That is why I had not added it as an external ID but as a site link when adding the book - which you then decided to move to the External IDs and then come and mention that it does not work. :). Please do not add non-working links and IDs just to clean a report... We cannot act if we cannot see how many problematic ASINs work only on non-US Audibles. Annie 13:51, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

Also keep in mind that if you are in Germany, your default Audible is Audible.de. Which means that when you search unless you tell it to go to Audible.com and stay there(there is a link at the top), it will search on Audible.de. That is why it finds it with a search for you - the initial link drops you on Audible.com, then the site search helps you and redirects to Audible.de. Annie 13:56, 2 April 2020 (EDT)

When there is only one publication, both methods work the same - going for a merge pays off if you have 2 or more. In this case I prefer to do it via the pubUpdate (as it will end up in the PV list if they ever come back). PV being active or not is irrelevant for how controversial something is - not being here does not mean we can just ignore them. The PV actually added a note on why they changed it so I will transfer some of their notes to the note after approving the change - this is indeed one of the normalized publisher names. Annie 11:12, 7 April 2020 (EDT)

Request to change date - Minority Report - PKD

Whichever way one looks at the date here it's wrong and should be 'date unknown'. Please refer hereand here. Can I make the change? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 18:24, 16 April 2020 (EDT)

Go ahead. Add a moderator note explaining why so someone does not reject it. Some of these very old verifications do have very weird dates (different rules? Different times? People not paying attention? Who knows...) :) Annie 21:30, 16 April 2020 (EDT)

What is the matter with Stonecreek?

I have a complaint about moderator Stonecreek. I do not understand why he does what he did.
I added two books, which he plainly rejected. Without any notice, question, or message on my discussion page. I had to find the two on the page Rejected Edits with a short notice what I did not do correctly. In both cases Stonecreek was right, no problem with that, see here [1] and here [2].
It took me a lot of time to search for the information of these two publications, which I did at the request of another moderator, JLaTondre, see [3].
In both cases Stonecreek as moderator could have easily corrected the mistakes, especially the Capitals with the titles of the poems, instead of plainly rejecting them without further ado. This is very frustrating for me! What is the job description of a moderator? To frustrate other people or to help them when something is not correct?
This is not the first time Stonecreek rejects a submission without any discussion, about sets of books or boxes. I did not agree with him and it led to a big discussion, see [4].
B.t.w. that question still isn't solved.
It takes me again a lot of time to add the two publications again, correctly this time. My first thought was, because of the frustrations, to quit my submissions. But can Stonecreek be told please to stay away from my submissions or edits? Or maybe Stonecreek can be rejected… as moderator? Zlan52 09:59, 20 April 2020 (EDT)

Sorry about the rejections, but I do also have a complaint: Why ain't it possible for an editor who is active for several years to study the help pages and take the advice issued at many times before to his heart? To submit novels with 40 pages and titles without considering the not-too-complicated regularizing of case was not okay. In my view - and at a stressing time like this - it is the moderator's job to help those who are new to the task, and this is a time-filling task.

I have the feeling that many of your submissions are done with the last fuel in your tank, that is, when you are already tired and not really up to the task. This ain't a good time to work here. Please consider to submit when you're fully awake: that way all of us wouldn't be exposed to stress. Stonecreek 13:13, 20 April 2020 (EDT)

We can't expect perfection from editors, especially from editors who are not ready to moderate their own submissions yet. That's why Moderator Qualifications say, in part:

A moderator will often have to explain to an editor why an edit is incorrect or needs to be changed in some way. Doing this in a supportive and friendly way is critical to making the ISFDB a successful cooperative venture. Moderators should be able to manage these communications without offending editors, particularly newcomers.

Over the last year Stonecreek's moderation of other editors' submission has prompted a number of complaints and discussions. The last time the issue came up in a big way, I wrote:

I have discussed recent issues with moderation with Christian. He has re-committed himself to following consensus when editing ISFDB records/guiding editors and to following other ISFDB rules and guidelines like not changing existing series organization without prior discussion. I will keep an eye on things to make sure that we don't have problems going forward.

The exchange above suggests that the current situation isn't working and is discouraging editors from contributing.

BUREAUCRAT NOTE: Christian, going forward, please limit your approvals and rejections to your own submissions. I appreciate all the work that you have done working with new editors, but the current situation is untenable. Ahasuerus 15:57, 20 April 2020 (EDT)

P.S. As an aside, we may want to enhance the software to let moderators change the status of rejected submissions back to "New". It would make it much easier to reverse accidental or erroneous rejections. Ahasuerus 15:57, 20 April 2020 (EDT)

Okay, but let me add a note: I don't want to drive anybody away from the database, my sole intention is to better the quality of data; and Zlan52 is not a newcomer, being around for more than four years - if we consider this time span as short, we all should be viewed at most as teenies ;-). Christian Stonecreek 00:22, 21 April 2020 (EDT)

Except that we do not make people moderators based on how long they had been around - some editors need more assistance due to various reasons. Long term editors who are not moderators are some of the people we need to help even more - so they can make the leap into independence. Working with them to help them get better is a bit different from aggravating them to the point of being ready to give up. Rejecting someone’s work because it is not perfect instead of approving and working with them to fix it is not the way to keep volunteers around. If you are unwilling to fix someone else’s work, don’t work on that submission. And we all know that this is a pretty common way for you to handle non-perfect submissions - regardless of the editor. Take the break from working with the imperfect submissions and then come back with fresh eyes. Because when I joined, you were not dealing this way with mistakes. Maybe try to remember the time when you were trying to teach and mentor instead of punish and reject - when you want to, you can do a marvelous job at it. :) Annie 00:54, 21 April 2020 (EDT)

First of all I work as diligently as possible with my admissions. I do like a database as ISFDB very much. I hate it when I make mistakes, but then I’m only human and for that reason bound to make mistakes. It doesn’t mean I like them, not at all. It is a very good thing that there are moderators to check the edits and correct things if necessary or start a discussion with the editor. I take their opinions very seriously! I listen and learn. But not from Stonecreek as moderator. I don’t know why he does what he is doing. His way of communicating, or better the lack of communication, is very annoying and frustrating. The above mentioned incidents are not the only ones that I came across with Stonecreek. The frustration was building up over the time. Most of the incidents were small, and not worth my time to start a discussion about with him. For instance with the Italian book Un Amore a Siddo. The dustjacket shows as author Philip J. Farmer, but more important the title page gives Philip José Farmer. The book itself is credited correctly, but the novel and novella in it are credited as by Philip J. Farmer. I corrected this when I verified the book. But Stonecreek rejected both corrections. Why? “Cancellation/Rejection Reason: name is two times verified”. So, if something is two times (wrongly) verified before, it is always right? See [5] and [6]. Stonecreek must have its own Help pages, where this is stated. I cannot find it. Oh no, I do not study the Help pages, that’s why. Stonecreek’s answer to my complaint is very arrogant: “I have the feeling that many of your submissions are done with the last fuel in your tank, that is, when you are already tired and not really up to the task. This ain't a good time to work here. Please consider to submit when you're fully awake: that way all of us wouldn't be exposed to stress.” If being a moderator is so stressful to him and also “a time-filling task” maybe he should resign as moderator, to get some rest. Do not strain yourself too much please. --Rias Zlan52 07:44, 22 April 2020 (EDT)

At this point, Stonecreek has been removed from moderating other's submissions. I recognize that this has been frustrating for you, but there has been a resolution to the situation. Going forward, I think it would be best if we focused on the facts and diffused the emotions (I know that is easier said than done). For the two submissions you highlight above, I have made the changes. It would be unusual (though not unknown) for a publication to use a different author credit on the collection title page then on the story title pages. It is not unusual for the database to have errors that get missed by multiple verifiers. This pub was entered before we had support for translations. Back then, the practice was to enter the contents as English titles and they were only changed to the foreign language titles latter. That should have only impacted the titles (you can see the change being made in the edit history), but it does mean that the initial verification wasn't necessarily as strict. Since you are the only active verifier of the publication, you are the only one who can tell us what the credits are so your edits should have been accepted. However, given the disconnect between the name shown on the cover and the publication credit, I could definitely see a moderator asking questions to verify which was correct. I added a pub note explaining the delta to avoid future confusion (which is always good practice in cases like these). -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2020 (EDT)

The Cyborg Handbook

Hello Moderators.
I have in my possession (since 1999) a paperback copy if this book

As far as I can tell from the contents page is is quite a wide ranging history of cybernetics from the very early times to a point presumably sometime prior to publication (1995). There is one Philip K. Dick short story in it (I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon).

The back cover blurb says the following:
"an initial look at cyborg society and the range of cyborg technologies, from the restorative and normalizing to the reconfiguration and enhancing....The handbook brings together key documents from the history of cyborgs as well as the best writing about them, including recent cyborg cultural theory."

Do the moderators feel this book warrents inclusion on ISFDB - the editor Charles Hables Gray does have an entry (2 essays and a short fiction). --Mavmaramis 07:35, 23 April 2020 (EDT)

Sure! If there's a piece of speculative fiction inside, we do want it in! Stonecreek 10:30, 23 April 2020 (EDT)

Stonecreek. Before I start I want be certain that I can enter the entire contents of the book (not just the Dick story) which may or may not be "speculative" in nature but more fact based or based on the latest (as of 1990s) research. It consists of chapters of seperately titled essays by various hands. It has an extensive bibliograohy which references numerous journal articles and such like and an index. --Mavmaramis 15:40, 23 April 2020 (EDT)

Think of the alternate history case: if it is speculative fiction, it is included; if it is genuine historian "what if" which is not speculative, it is out. Same should apply there. Are those essays discussing the fiction or are they really about the science? As cyborgs don't exist, it is kind hard to say from the blurb :) That will determine if we include as non-genre (and only add otherwise illegible contents) or we add as genre and then all is inside. Annie 15:51, 23 April 2020 (EDT)

Hello Annie. As i am not an expert on where the "threshold" lies it's very hard for me to determine between essays discussing the "fiction" or essays discussing the "science" which could be theoretical or acutal. Below are portions of the introduction which metions three pieecs of fiction (the Dick story and two I can;t determine) in the hopes that it might help.

Book is organised into three sections. "The Genesis of the Cyborg" includes the prehistory and birth of the cyborg figure....documents and interviews with Martin Clynes (who coined the word cyborg) and J.E. Steele (bionics)
The second section is "The Proliferation of Cyborgs" exploring msjor centres of cyborg production in our culture: scienee and engineering (including space exploration/war), medicine (which includes articles in relation to heart transplant patients psychological experience and bioethics) and the imagination (this section includes cyborgs in comics, films and TV series)
The third section "The Futures of Cyborgs" which addresses the implications of cyborgs is divided into anthropolgy and politics.
It says that the bibliography lists a large number of cyborg fiction, films and technical literature from computer science. medicine, genetics and bionic engineering "often cited at great length in many of the theoretical articles"
It could mean that if I do end up entering the contents I could be entering non-speculative material but neither you (as the moderators) or I would know.
--Mavmaramis 02:51, 24 April 2020 (EDT)

We would only enter the essays that are genre. So from your description, only essays from the imagination section and then maybe the bibliography if it has a meaningful list of genre items. In the pub notes, you would then add a statement that only genre contents have been indexed (so something like that). -- JLaTondre (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2020 (EDT)

Bibliography cites about 10 nonfiction speculative sources and about 50 other speculative fiction novels. I'll do as you suggest JLaTondre and only enter "Part 4" contents with some notes. Thank you all for your input on this. Not an easy task when faced with such an grey area. Any issues with with the submission (which won't be immediately) then do please post on my talk page. --Mavmaramis 08:05, 24 April 2020 (EDT)

suggested corrections

I have the following corrections for ISFDB, I do not have the necessary computer skills to add these myself (tried in the past, made more work for moderators) so I hope a moderator will add these:

Andy Duncan, "The Devil's Whatever" is definitely in the Pearleen series

Lev Grossman, "Endgame" is in the Fillory/Magicians series

Josh Malerman, should be "Ghastle and Yule" (Ghastle, not Ghastly)

Lucy Sussex, "A Small Star of Cold" and "The Revenant" are 2 titles for the same story (I own Sussex's collection Absolute Uncertainty says Small Star will be published in Eidolon 1 as The Revenant)

Dave Hutchinson, "Catacomb Saints" is a chapter from his novel Europe at Dawn in his Fractured Europe series, I would note it as an excerpt rather than a separate entry in the series

Gene Wolfe "Wrapper" and "The Wrapper" are the same story

Peter S. Beagle, the novel I'm Afraid You've Got Dragons was NEVER published, Beagle pulled the book after a conflict with the publisher, Black Gate has a good article online about this titled "The Mystery of Peter S. Beagle's I'm Afraid You've Got Dragons"

Here is the complete TOC for the unpublished New Dimensions 13 with first publication noted (although review copies exist) again nice article on Black Gate online, including the very cool cover

Thank you for the information. I took the liberty of adding bullets to your post to make it easier to read. I will make the necessary changes. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2020 (EDT)

New Dimensions 13

Thank you for posting my corrections. One more note for New Dimensions 13:
The Vonda McInityre novella "Superluminal" was published as "Transit" in the October 1983 issue of Asimov's SF magazine.
I obtained this informed from an Asimov's editor in a post on the now defunct Asimov's message board. This makes sense, because Transit is the middle part of McIntyre's novel Superluminal. (I don't have a copy of Superluminal, but I believe her novella "Aztecs" (1977) is the first section of Superluminal, don't know if "Aztecs" was expanded in the novel.)

Sorry, you did mention the variant title in your prior post, but I missed it. I have created the variant. The information on "Aztecs" and "Transit" is already listed in the notes to Superluminal. I will add it to their title records also. Thanks for the follow-up! -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2020 (EDT)

New Dimensions 13/Damon Knight

One more New Dimensions 13 item: Damon Knight's "O" should be linked to his listing for O (no quotation marks) first published in 1984 Thanks again. Template:Subts:unsigned

James S. Austin

I recently added It's A Grimm Life to the database, if my submission is accepted I'll change James A. Austin to James S. Austin. I'm sorry that I screwed up his name. It's not James S. Austin. MLB 20:02, 26 April 2020 (EDT)

Approved. And authors merged to save an edit :) If you meant that it is a different Austin from the one we had with that last sentence, just edit and add an (I) in that book - although it seems the same guy to me based on his publishing history - thus me merging. Annie 20:16, 26 April 2020 (EDT)

Essays in booklets

Hello Moderators.
This will almost certainly fall outside the remit of ISFDB but it seems to be comming (becoming ?) more prevalent now.
Many speculative fiction films, eespecially collector's editions or DVD/Blu-Ray combo packs (Eureka, Criterion and so forth) come with additional material - especially a booklet that contains an essay about the film in question.
I have no intention of breaking ISFDB rules/standards merely passing comment on the rise of such things and what happens if (or when) one of these booklets contains an essay by a known "above threshold" author. --Mavmaramis 13:16, 27 April 2020 (EDT)

Even if you are above threshold, non-genre essays are not included unless they are either a complete book or are in an otherwise genre publication - Asimov's essays in one of our magazines are eligible; the ones in Nature are not. The part of the rules that will apply here is "This includes any non-genre works published as standalone books as well as non-genre short fiction, but excludes non-fiction which was not published as a standalone book. Thus, Poul Anderson's mysteries and his non-fiction book about thermonuclear weapons will be included, but Gregory Benford's professionally published scientific articles will be excluded." These pamphlets are not standalone books but part of the DVD/Blu Ray publication and as such ineligible.

The only way to decide that they are eligible will be if we treat them as separate publications but that will set a precedent of treating separate pieces of a whole as single things (i.e. a paperback+disk combo is not added as 2 publications now unless they already existed separately - and then someone can make the case that in the digital era, every article in a magazine is a part of the whole so can be split as well... ). So not eligible unless reprinted and then only in the reprint is the way I read the rules. :) Annie 13:36, 27 April 2020 (EDT)

Thanks Annie. Again reiterating my statement that "I have no intention of breaking ISFDB rules/standards" but playing devil's advoacate you mention "non genre" works. So the essay relating to the film Robinson Crusoe on Mars by Paul McAuley (an above threshold author) in the booklet included with the Eureka DVD/Blu-Ray combo is non genre ? How does that work ? (Not specific to that example but in general) --Mavmaramis 15:45, 27 April 2020 (EDT)

Our non-fiction is not really judged based on genre/non-genre but based on the "Works about speculative fiction" basis - this is the only part in the acquisition policy that non-fiction can use to get into the DB (that and "being printed in a genre magazine (book)" or "is a complete book by an author over the threshold"). If the essay is about the books, it is eligible (as this is a valid publication technically). If it is about the movie specifically, it is not about speculative fiction (movies and performances different from readings are not considered eligible) - so it is out. We occasionally do add too many TV and movie related non-fiction IMO but that does not mean anything ever written about any genre-related content (games, movies, TV, music, dolls...) is eligible or that we want it. Think of the non-fiction here as a support for our fiction - we are mainly a fiction DB. Annie 16:08, 27 April 2020 (EDT)

While I agree with your position, the inclusion policy as written doesn't state that. It defines "speculative fiction" as a series of genre items without using the word published. It then says we include "published works of speculative fiction" (defining published to mean print, electronic, & audio) and "works about speculative fiction". The latter doesn't mention published at all. It's not unreasonable (actually I would say it's quite logical for them to) come away with the position that works about movies & TVs are allowed. If that's not what we want, there should be a rules discussion about changing it to "works about published speculative fiction". -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2020 (EDT)

Are you saying that a movie is "speculative fiction" under the terms of the DB? Because only if that is true, then the books about them are eligible. And if you read it this way, then this part of the inclusions:

Online publications available exclusively as a Web page, but only if

published by a market which makes the author eligible for SFWA membership (listed here), OR

shortlisted for a major award

would make any online short movie or almost any song eligible for inclusion if it is shortlisted for an award.

And if we are saying that the current rules allow all non-fiction about movies, it also allows all fiction about genre songs and about anime (not excluded either) for example.

If we need to clarify the policy, let's do that - but I think I am reading the policy as designed... :)Annie 17:17, 27 April 2020 (EDT)

The issue of "works about movies & TVs" has come up a number of times. I have seen editors adopt three different approaches:

Include all non-fiction works about content that is both speculative and fictional regardless of the medium: board games, comics/manga, video games, movies, TV/anime, etc.

Exclude non-fiction works about content that we do not consider to be "published" speculative fiction, where "published" is defined as per the Rules of Acquisition, i.e. "paper", "electronic" or "audio" publication.

Include only non-fiction works about speculative content which can be plausibly linked to "published" speculative fiction. This approach lets us include secondary bibliographies, i.e. bibliographies of bibliographies even though they are not -- technically -- "about" speculative fiction. It also includes non-fiction works about popular shared cross-media universes like "Doctor Who" and "Star Wars", but only as long as there is a plausible connection to the universe's "published" component. Thus a book about "Star Trek" physics would be included (because it applies to all media including Star Trek novels) while a book about Star Trek movie outtakes and bloopers would be excluded.

Personally, I prefer the third approach. I seem to recall that it had plurality support the last time we discussed the issue, but I don't think it was ever codified. Ahasuerus 18:03, 27 April 2020 (EDT)

So should we reopen and try to codify this finally? I am operating under approach 3 because this is how I had always read (and understood - and been explained to) our rules. Or should we try to find the old discussion first? :) Annie 18:07, 27 April 2020 (EDT)

Yes, as written (as opposed to how designed), the definition of "speculative fiction" (in the definitions section) doesn't say anything about published. It just defines what is included and excluded in terms of genre elements. There is no discussion of medium. Then you get down to the rules of acquisition and it merely says "works about speculative fiction" with no discussion of medium. While Included #1 defines published, #2 doesn't use that term so leaves it ambiguous and people could interpret as "published works about all speculative fiction mediums". I'm not saying we have to change it. We could leave it as it and just explain what is meant when people submit stuff. Or we could change it and still have to explain it since most people don't read the policy before submitting (though some do). I was just trying to explain why even experienced editors could be confused about this topic. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2020 (EDT)

Confusion is our middle name around here when we start hitting the borders of our eligibility :) Sounds like we are on the same page then these are ineligible under the current rules (or the spirit of the current rules anyway)? Annie 19:07, 27 April 2020 (EDT)

I fear I many have opened an old can of worms. And reading your discussion it's safe to say and firmly reiterate that I have no intention of breaking ISFDB rules/standards by entering such material and leave it at that. Thnaks to all for your views regarding this. --Mavmaramis 19:37, 27 April 2020 (EDT)

The cans need to be opened and cleaned up or they get older and smellier and harder to clean later :) Don't worry at all - if such questions arise, never hesitate to post for opinions - sometimes we may need a change rules, sometimes a moderator or 3 may need to revisit their own reading (including the one(s) that are trying to answer to you) and sometimes we know what we should be doing but noone bothered to write it down. Discussions are useful in a project such as ours - so don't feel like you did anything wrong here. :) Annie 19:41, 27 April 2020 (EDT)

Individual letters in Asimov's PVed by inactive editors

Sorry for a dumb question, fellow moderators... See the submission I have on hold (buried in the middle of Annie's held Fixer collection). The editor wants to add a specific letter and letter credit to an issue of Asimov's, where the existing submission has a single "Letters" by "various" to cover all of the letters. The credit would be for an author whose entry only exists because of another letter credit. The Internet Archive has a scan showing the letter is indeed present, so that's not an issue. But do we want to be adding such separate credits? Thanks for any thoughts. --MartyD 11:26, 2 May 2020 (EDT)

I've added several hundred if not thousands of letters, for letter writers above the "threshold," such as authors, scientists, editors and fans of note. It's easier to determine this for older magazines, not so easy for more recent publications.Rkihara 12:17, 2 May 2020 (EDT)

The letter is not spec fiction, nor about spec fiction per se, so I am against adding this as separate contents. MagicUnk 13:30, 2 May 2020 (EDT)

That’s irrelevant inside of a SF magazine though - we do not skip essays in those, speculative or not. However for letters we specifically say that editors may add other letters, not just the ones from the genre known figures so technically adding it is allowed. I’d allow it personally - I would even add ones that create new authors. Annie 15:20, 2 May 2020 (EDT)

This is another area where our documentation is contradictory. Help:Screen:NewPub manages to say both that "Entries may be restricted to significant letters by well-known sf personalities. Editors have the option to include other letters." (under Content Information: Contents always included) and "Entries should currently be restricted to significant letters by well-known sf personalities." (under Content Information: Letters to the Editor). -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2020 (EDT)

The Policy page has the “have the option” language. But yeah - sounds like another thing we need to decide what we want to do. :)Annie 21:12, 2 May 2020 (EDT)

It certainly looks like we need to revisit this issue on the Rules and Standards page.

As I recall, one issue that we ran into back when we started entering magazine letters was that it wasn't always easy to tell whether the author was a "well-known sf personality". During the pulp era, some early letterhacks used joke pseudonyms, diminutive forms of their names, etc. Much later, when the pseudonym was discovered, there was no easy way to identify the missing letters.

In addition, "well-known personality" can be hard to define. For example, Louis C. Smith was an early SF bibliographer and fan, but he is not exactly a household name. If we didn't have his letters on file, it would make life more difficult for those who have been working on his biography. Ahasuerus 21:26, 2 May 2020 (EDT)

Right, I for one was surprised a number of times about the relevancy of letter authors I thought not worth to list in the first place. And, in this case, we already have one letter by the author: if we don't allow the new one, per plain logic we would have to delete the other one. If it's an essay in a genre magazine it is eligible (and how do you know it's not about spec. fic.?). Stonecreek 01:17, 3 May 2020 (EDT)

And we never know if that unknown author won’t end up writing a story 4 years later which wins him an award - and then backtracking and trying to find the letters is so much harder. Or that this unknown author is not actually the main force behind the conventions in a small country somewhere. I’d rather opt on the side of inclusion - if an editor wants to add essays from a book/magazine we are not marking as not genre, they can add it. Plus - if the same aufhake writes 30 letters, we really want them here. Except we will never know if we do not allow the letters. Just thinking aloud here :) Annie 01:25, 3 May 2020 (EDT)

(unindent) Ok, thanks, all. I will accept it. ... And now that I go to do that, I see Ron is one of the PVs! :-) --MartyD 07:51, 3 May 2020 (EDT)

Precious Artifacts 2 - PKD

Yes. Just add a summary of the changes in the moderator notes so it is clear what was there. Or a summary of what is there now - this seems to be easier. Annie 19:23, 4 May 2020 (EDT)

Thanks Annie, and yes, so it makes sense in the Edit History :) Kev. BanjoKev 21:16, 4 May 2020 (EDT)

Queue

Hi, I have 2 extensive submissions in the queue. While I'm not looking for prioritization in any way, or complaining at this difficult time, but I am getting concerned over this one 4636646. It's been over 2 days now for that and I'm anxious to get on with all the follow-up work needed - I hope you understand. Thanks for your time and patience! Kev. BanjoKev 09:48, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

Some days get a bit crazy - weekends can be hard and then things can pile up early in a week. Got that one now and will clear some more shortly. Annie 15:24, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

Cover art credit evidence

It is the cover art to this publication.
It is also the cover rot this book where it is credited to Gutierrez. However. I cannot find the Altan no. 836 ebook listed above on ISFDB.

Is the Twitter post (which includes close up of signiature) and the perryp[edia website sufficient evidence in the moderators opinion for the records to have that data added and notes linking to the source ? --Mavmaramis 16:18, 9 May 2020 (EDT)

The Night of the Dragonstar pub record also links to a local copy of the signature. That signature is very similar to other Gutierrez's signatures. I would credit based on the signature. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2020 (EDT)

Great. Theere is a massive BUT which I stated quite clearly but will rrepeat in case you missed it. I cannot find the Altan no. 836 ebook listed above on ISFDB. If I knew how to find it to edit it then I would do so but I cannot find it hence I was really hoping one of the Mods would be better equipped to find it. --Mavmaramis 19:11, 9 May 2020 (EDT)

We do not have 836: this is what we have from that magazine. I can add it later or you can - let me know. Annie 19:36, 9 May 2020 (EDT)

If you'd be so kind as to add that would be great as I don't actually own a physical copy of the book. --Mavmaramis 07:22, 10 May 2020 (EDT)

Neither do I - you do not need to own a book to add it :) I will see what I can do in the morning. Annie 07:27, 10 May 2020 (EDT)

I'll add the issue; it's more easy for me to do it I think. And I would wait with the ebook edition to enter: the magazine was first published in 1987 as a digest / booklet. Christian Stonecreek 08:56, 10 May 2020 (EDT)

Oh yes - I was planning to enter the original, not the e-reprint. :) Thanks for taking care of it! Annie 09:21, 10 May 2020 (EDT)

"CHAPBOOK Publications with Multiple Fiction Titles" modified

Unknown UK, August 1940

We have a bit of a pages problem here and the PV is not around so I need someone to look at it with me and check my thinking. It obviously cannot be 64 pages if the contents are on the correct page. According to Galactic Central (issue listing (at the moment - we know these are unstable), the contents are where we have them and the magazine is 80+ pages. Does anyone see a reason not to change this to 82 pages (or 84 maybe?) (and it will match the other one from this year December) - later the magazine comes down to 64 pages but in 1940 all the issues seem to be 80++ at GC). Thanks for any opinions. Annie 23:46, 9 May 2020 (EDT)

Bureaucrats and the UNHOLD button

As you know, moderators can put submissions on hold. Only the holding moderator can "unhold" a submission. In the past it occasionally led to problems when a moderator became unavailable before getting a chance to approve or "unhold" submissions.

The software has been modified to let bureaucrats "unhold" submissions held by other moderators. If you notice that a submission has been on hold for a while and the moderator is not available, please post a request on the Moderator noticeboard and a bureaucrat will "unhold" the affected submission(s). Ahasuerus 19:30, 13 May 2020 (EDT)

Something went wrong with either this patch or the previous one -- the "rejection reason" is now lost when you reject. It does not matter if I do it with the item on HOLD or after I unhold - the reason is getting lost. Annie 19:44, 13 May 2020 (EDT)

Correction to publication data for Edison Marshall's "The Serpent City"

The story is said to have first appeared in Weird Tales 1974. In fact that was a reprint of "The Serpent City" from The Blue Book Nov. 1919. Source is the PulpsMag index. Also I read the story a while back.

beb

Verified and fixed. Here is the story now. Thanks for identifying that missing first printing of the story! Annie 17:26, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

Aphotic Realm 2020 Issues

I would like to add details for the latest issue of Aphotic Realm (issue 9), but no magazine tracker exists for 2020. I also can't work out how to add details for a new year for a magazine issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RayDaleyWriterUK (talk • contribs) .

Just start it as a New Magazine (here), add the details, contents and everything else you want to add and submit. The yearly series is created as a second step once we have the issue in the DB - we are publication based so add the issue itself first. Annie 19:42, 31 May 2020 (EDT)

The H. P. Lovecraft Collection

Hello moderators.
I bought a physical copy of this
It's 6 hadback volumes, all different colours, no dustwrappers in a slipcase with ISBN 978-1-78428-860-0
Publisher is stated on copyright page(s)to be "Sirius Publishing, a division of Arcturus Publishing Limited" with a date of publication as 2018.
A search for ISBN brings up no results
Individual volumes have their own ISBN.
Only one of the volumes is listed (and that's paperback too)
The Randolph Carter Tales

I would add each volume individually as collections (especially because they have their own ISBNs but even if they did not...) and then add the set as well (a clone from the ebook will do it for that if the title matches or you can add a new one and we can merge/variant depending on the name) and then import from the individual volumes. :)

I think that The Randolph Carter Tales is actually exactly the hardcover you are holding (both Amazons think so - and despite online sellers with no copies calling it a paperback...) so I updated it and added some notes. A lot of these notes need to go into the slipcased edition notes but I parked them here for now. Unless the ISBN was used for both a hardcover and a pb at the same time... or clothbound confused some sellers. All other volumes are showing as hc only everywhere so I think this one is safely a hc as well... Feel free to edit this one as much as you want :)

PS: We had a long and not very productive discussion on the topic a few months ago that led nowhere as usual... Due to the separate ISBNs and the fact that the individual volumes appear separately as well, it is probably an overkill to try to follow it but if you are curious... Annie 18:28, 2 June 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for your clear guidance Annie. Yes it is that set (to which you linked). Yes container title is same as e-book, hence why I mentioed it. I just want to clarify the publisher - given the Randolph Carter volume says "Artcurus" whereas the actual books say "Sirius Publishing, a division of Arcturus Publishing Limited" - there is a "Sirius / Arcturus Publishing" so surely it should be this ? --Mavmaramis 00:02, 3 June 2020 (EDT)

"Sirius / Arcturus Publishing" sounds correct based on what I am seeing on the copyright page that is visible... I have half a mind picking up that set as well - it looks nice and I have a soft spot for well done books... Although I am also seeing Sirius on its own in the DB - let me check with the PVs and see in what direction we want to merge. Go for "Sirius / Arcturus Publishing" for now - if needed, I will merge it later if we decide to do something else. Annie 00:37, 3 June 2020 (EDT)

Thank you again Annie. The set is quite lovely and it's only £35. Deinately says "Sirius Publishing, a division of Arcturus Publishing Limited" on copyright pages of books so I'm going with Sirius / Arcturus Publishing. --Mavmaramis 04:16, 3 June 2020 (EDT)

The New Challenge of the Stars

Hello Moderators.
In regards to this book I made some brief notes in regards to the differences between it and this version.
I'd like to create a page to document the changes more fully than the brief notes allow if that is acceptable.
If allowed would a moderater be wlling to assist in the creation of such a page and then to link it to the the publications ? --Mavmaramis 17:56, 4 June 2020 (EDT)

We can easily create a new Wiki page but... Wiki pages are not archived in the same way as the DB and they do not get exported/backed up with the Site backup - so there is a chance to lose the information and anyone downloading the archives may not have it. What I would do is to use {{BREAK}} in the notes (see some examples - open the entries to see how they look like). This leaves the data in the proper DB and does not always show it on the publication screen unless someone clicks on the "View Full Notes". What do you think? If you insist on the Wiki page, we can always do that but we are trying to migrate data from wiki to the DB... :) Annie 18:01, 4 June 2020 (EDT)

What I meant was a seperate page on this site. I've seen other examples (although finding an example immediately would be tricky) where there was a link to a seperate page here giving more detail than was allowable in the notes (or in the format like what you linked). --Mavmaramis 01:18, 5 June 2020 (EDT)

And all those separate pages will be moved to the DB Notes fields sooner or later - or this is the plan anyway.

I can create a wiki page for you for now - do you have a preferred title for it? Then we can add the link to it to the web pages of the title records (not the publications most likely) so people can find it. And then when I or someone else get to that one during the cleanup in a few years, it will get moved to the DB :)

There is no maximum allowable data in a note field... Annie 02:16, 5 June 2020 (EDT)

Ok if that' s the case - and I wasn't aware those seperate pages HERE were not (as it were) here. I think what I will do, and to save some future person is to edit the TNCOTS notes to explain the diffferences in more detail. --Mavmaramis 03:52, 5 June 2020 (EDT)

Think of the site as two separate sites living together - the DB part and the Wiki part :) We can link between them but we treat them differently for backups, approvals and so on. We do have some sprawling pages which are just not practical in notes (yet) (so we can link to them via the web pages links) so if you think the text will be really long, we can do that. But anyone downloading the archive to use offline will not have this data with the book.

Historically, we used the wiki a lot more but there had been an effort to slowly move the data into the database. You may also want to add the notes on the title level and not the publication level - but they are easy to move once they are written. Thanks for working on these! Annie 04:00, 5 June 2020 (EDT)

Second set of eyes on eligibility for a non-fiction submission

Can someone look at this and share an opinion if it is eligible? Under the current rules:

Published non-fiction works about speculative fiction which can be plausibly linked to published (as defined above) speculative fiction. This rule allows the inclusion of secondary bibliographies, i.e. bibliographies of bibliographies, which are two steps removed from published speculative fiction. It also allows the inclusion of non-fiction works about shared cross-media universes like "Doctor Who" and "Star Wars", but only as long as there is a plausible connection to the universe's published component. Thus a book about "Star Trek physics" can be included (because it applies to all types of media including novels) while a book about Star Trek movie outtakes and bloopers should be excluded

I think it is ineligible (only about the movie and the process of making it basically). The author is not above treshold (I think?). So I don't think it belongs -- but I will appreciate another opinion. Thanks! Annie 04:23, 6 June 2020 (EDT)

If it was strictly about making the movie, I'd say ineligible. However, since it was written the novel's author, I'd assume it covers adapting the novel for film and the decisions that were made relative to his writing the novel. If so, I'd say that meets "plausibly linked to published (as defined above) speculative fiction". Especially if he at all discusses writing the novel in the first place. I'd wait for SFJuggler's response and see what the scope is. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2020 (EDT)

Full disclosure: I have inclusionist tendencies. :) While in isolation it ought to be ineligible, and I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to get it included:

The book on which the movie is based is "in" (and we have a record for it).

This book is by the same author as the "in" book, even though the author may not be above the threshold (but we already have a record for the author)

An editor went to the trouble to assemble and submit the data.

Also, without reading the book, it's hard to know if any of it meets the "Star Trek physics" sort of measure. Imagine, for example, that Star Trek started as books instead of TV shows, was turned into a TV show, and then along came a book Trek to TV: Bringing Star Trek to the Small Screen, and in that book was a discussion about interpreting, visualizing, and rendering the author's "transporter" mechanism. To me, that would meet the physics-discussion bar. If the book in this proposed submission had any discussion of the fantastic elements of the original book and translating them to the screen, I would view that the same way.

So I would have convinced myself to allow it. --MartyD 08:24, 6 June 2020 (EDT)

Thanks guys. I posted exactly because of the arguments that Marty cited - it is so close to where we cut the line that it can go any way. I will work with SFJuggler to figure out what we want to do here. Annie 15:17, 6 June 2020 (EDT)

Easy way to switch canonical author name?

Hello. I was wondering if there exists an easy way to switch canonical name, or is it a one by one excercise? Thanks MagicUnk 03:12, 7 June 2020 (EDT)

Depends on the case -- but generally it is one by one with some tricks (the merge of a parent/variant when they were only between the the old and the new canonical for example. If you share which one you are thinking of switching, you can get a better answer. One note - if it is an artist, don't forget to switch all covers which are not credited in the books as well. Annie 03:31, 7 June 2020 (EDT)